The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-04-25
THE NEW PARTY'S PLATFORM
Mr.. Rappaport Admits the Journal Is
Right in Saying 1t Means Socialism.
He Speaks Plainly About the Purposes of the
Movement. Which, He Says, 1t Is Fool
ish to Deny, Is Socialistie.

There were probably half hundred English
speaking Socialists at Workingmen's Hall, No
1171 East Washington street. yesterday after
noon. to hear the s.City Press and the Union
Labor Party" discussed. When the meeting
was called to order there were no speakers pres
ent except Philip Rappaport, and he was called
upon to talk. In beginning he said he preferred
to call the party the Socialistic Labor Party.
He read the editorial comments of tho Sentinel
on The platform. All the paper said, he
thought, didn't amount to much. but
he desired to comment on one passage
from the editorial to the effect that
the Democratic party had always been the
refuge and the friend of the laboring man. Such,
ne said, was not the case, and any person who
would hunt the statute books through and
through would not find single law enacted by
the Democratic party for the benefit of the
laboring man. During the short time the DEM
ocratic party had been in power, if there had
been any change at all it had been for the worse.
The News, he sad had something to say
about the platform, but. like the Sentinel, did
not touch the main question. On all questions
of local importance that paper opposed them. 1t
sided with the monopolies and, would be
supposed. opposed the city owning and operating
its own streetcar lines for the benefit of the peo
pie. The object of the new party was to deprive
individuals of some of their present rights, and
conduct enterprises in the interests of all the peo
pile. The street railways should be maintained
by the city, the same as the streets and the pub
lie schools. The State and the city should have
something more to do than guard the State and
city affairs. They should look after the inter-
ess of their citizens.
The Journal. he said, was the only paper that
could what the party was really organized
for. THAT paper" said he. s.makes the follow
Ing editorial comments: The preamble seems
to smack of socialism, certainly the laborine
men of Indianapolis not SociaistsP and
again, the platform is not open to serious crit
icism.' Let us what all this means. I ad-
init that the preamble is bir of glittering gen.
eralities it could be nothing else. 1t is i'm
possible to write book for a platform. All you
can ever state is a few generahties 1t does
smack of socialism. Whether it Is expressed or
not 1t really means socialism. 1t would
be foolish to deny il. The labor
movement, in whatever form it appears,
is socialism. 1t is simply Knight of Labor
platform. We want the abolition of one sySeem.
and the substitution of another. The Journal
says the system works well in Indianapolis. 1t
does, but only for the rich. Again. the Journal
says the platform is nothing but sugar coated
socialism. 1t is not sugar-coated 1t is pure
socialism, The Knights of Labor are nothing
but Socialists"
In support of this assertion the speaker read
the following passage from book political
economy, recently written by Richard T. Ely,
of Johns Hopkins University: THE declara
ton of principles of the Knights of Labor means
socialism. The members of the order, however,
do not put themselves prominently forward in
the movement"
THE writer is perfectly right" continued the
speaker. "A great many Knights will deny the
fact, but they do understand their principles
The trouble with the Knights of Labor is they
do not know what they want Not out of
every hundred knows what the declaration of
PRINCIPLES means. But. in fact, they are en-
trely Socialists, and the Union Labor party is,
misled, and will not admit that they are Social
lists.
I'm another paragraph the Journal says: The
majority OF those who have work thankful
that they get work. Why should man be
thankful because he can get work. The right to
thankful for it. To have TO be thankful for
| getting work is the same to have to be thank
ful that we can live"
| Concluding, he said: '"The people do not I'M
| derstand socialism. When they do understand
ii they will not be prejuiced against it. All the
socialism we have now is in the poor house. We
want a system that will look after a man before
| he goes to the noor-house. When a man is not
| able to work the State should be compelled to
| care for him. Neither of the old parties would
| dare to put such preamble at the head of a
| platform did. The Democratic party was
| afraid to support the United Labor party in chi
| csgo, and went over to the Republicans. In the
| future there will be but two partes--one repre-
senting capital, the other labor Unless there is
change men will be driven to sheer desperation.
| The bad systems of the past have always been
| abolished by revolution but now there is a
| chance to do it by the ballot, and it remains to
be seen whether or not the opportunity will be
| embraced"